Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Last October, over 70 volunteers across America took part in the first National Day of Panhandling for Reparations. Their task that day was to stand on sidewalks and street corners, asking white pedestrians for donations to compensate for the enslavement of black people.

The event's national organizer, damali ayo, reported that white folks in one city, Wooster, Ohio, opened wide their hearts and wallets, contributing a grand total of $22. The Wooster volunteers donated it to the families of the Jena Six.

Frances Miller's early attempts at starting a conversation Wednesday were a little rough.

"Hey, sister, are you a descendant of slaves?" she called out to a woman who looked African American, scoring a glare.

Miller sat on Northeast 15th Avenue at Broadway -- a volunteer in the National Day of Panhandling for Reparations. She and others across the country asked white passers-by to pay reparations for enslaving black people, and then they gave money to black passers-by. Each got a receipt.

Many people walking by reacted with confusion, amusement, annoyance, offense. But for the people who stopped, the results were profound.

"Artists take the lead on social issues," said Portland-based performance artist damali ayo, who masterminded the event. "This is the way I'm taking the lead on a social issue. Taking it to the streets. Also to get the job done -- getting those reparations paid out."

While most white Americans are willing to admit that slavery was wrong, they have a lot of trouble understanding why in the world today's African Americans should be paid anything, financially or otherwise, for racist inequalities suffered by their ancestors.

A commenter at eBaum's World expresses a common white reaction to this issue: "What the hell! Reparations for something that happened hundreds of years ago? Nobody alive today in America has ever been a slave, so why the fuck should they get reparations?"

Today's white Americans often say such things, because they have little understanding of how the past lives in the present. Why would they, really, when their own ancestors committed a fundamental denial of their own pasts, a bleaching out of their family histories and national origins, which they cashed in so they and their descendants could reap the perks of membership the White Club?

In his book A Different Mirror, historian Ronald Takaki explains something from the past that most African Americans remember and understand as currently significant, but that most white Americans have never heard of.

After the Civil War, the federal occupation of the South as well as the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment liberated some four million blacks. But what were the hopes and dreams of these newly freed people?

What blacks wanted most of all, more than education and voting rights, was economic power, and they viewed landownership as the basis of economic power. Their demand for land, they argued, was reasonable and just. For one thing, they had paid for it through their military participation in the war: 186,000 blacks, most of them recruited or conscripted in the slave states, had served in the Union Army, and one-third of them were listed as missing or dead.

Blacks as soldiers had helped to bring the war to an end, and they felt they were entitled to some land.

Some Radical Republicans including Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, and George W. Julian understood the need to grant land to the freed slaves. They argued that emancipation had to be accompanied by land confiscation from the planter class and land distribution to the newly freed blacks. The perpetuation of the large estates [on which slaves had formerly worked] would mean the development of a semifeudal system based on the cheap labor of exploited and powerless blacks.

But Congress was only willing to grant them civil and political rights through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. The lawmakers rejected legislation for land distribution—known as the “40 Acres and a Mule” bill. Land should not be given to the freedmen, the New York Timesargued, because they had to be taught the lessons of hard work, patience, and frugality.Editors ofThe Nation protested that land confiscation and distribution would violate the principle of property rights.

During the war, however, forty thousand blacks had been granted land by military order. In 1864, after General Sherman completed his march to the sea, black leaders told him: “The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor.”

In response, General Sherman issued Special Field Order Number 15, which set aside large sections of South Carolina and Georgia for distribution to black people. They were given “possessory titles” to forty-acre lots, and the blacks believed they owned the land. But after the planters were pardoned by President Andrew Johnson, they began to reclaim the lands and force their former slaves to work for them.

The black landowners resisted. Some of them declared they were prepared to defend their property with guns.

Federal troops quickly crushed the resistance: seizing the lands, they tore up the freedman’s title papers and restored the land to the planter class.

Thus ended the possibility of real freedom.

No longer slaves, they became wage-earners or sharecroppers, working the land of their former masters in exchange for a part of the crop. Forced to buy goods from the planter’s store, they were trapped in a vicious economic cycle, making barely enough to pay off their debts.

Let's pause for some art.

In the form of a poem, Sekou Sundiata (who died last year) makes an argument for racial compensation:

"Reparations"

As barricuda22 says in the comments at YouTube about Sundiata's poem, "Please understand it is not $ he's speaking about."

The unpaid debt to black America takes many forms. How could the less tangible ones be paid back?

Money is a tangible debt, though again, it's a debt that most white folks have a hard time seeing.

It takes money to make money. In general terms, a group that's been technically free but effectively shunned for over a century, and has only recently acquired anything near equitable access, still has a lot of catching up to do. And in general terms also, a group with members legally (and artificially) classified as “white,” and thus able to own land and work for over a century at higher paying jobs, and then able to hand their wealth down to their children, who then handed it down to theirs, who then handed it down to today's--that group is still far, far ahead.

As several recentsociologicalstudies have shown, the black/white wealth gap--a racialized difference between average amounts of accumulated assets--remains enormous. And despite what white people see as a gradual dwindling of the significance of race, that wealth gap is increasing, not decreasing.

In their 1997 book, Black Wealth / White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality, Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro were the first to clarify the reality and significance of this gap. In a recent discussion of a new, tenth-anniversary edition of this book, one of the book's authors summarizes some of the study's results:

According to Oliver, wealth creates opportunity, and whether or not parents can achieve the American dream of home ownership, a car, and a mutual fund is one of the best predictors of whether their children will do the same.

"Right now, almost 80 percent of black kids begin their adult lives with no assets whatsoever," said Oliver. "That's not the case for white kids. If they don't have financial resources in hand, they have access to them through their families. Most black kids don't have that available to them."

According to some researchers, as much as 80 percent of the wealth people accumulate over the course of their lifetimes actually begins as a gift from a relative, he added. That gift can come in the form of a down payment on a first home, a college education, or an inheritance from a parent or grandparent.

"If you look at lack of wealth, you find it among all sectors of the population," Oliver continued, "but even disadvantaged whites can generate more wealth and pass it on from generation to generation than disadvantaged African Americans."

While the racial disparity in income, as opposed to wealth, has narrowed considerably, the historical and ongoing significance of accumulated, generationally transferrable wealth remains invisible to most white Americans. They usually can't see this more significant gap because their training into whiteness has delude them into thinking that history doesn't matter. Into failing to see that if the whiteness of some people hasn't kept them from being poor, that doesn't mean that racism is over.

The current fact of white poverty means instead that some white ancestors failed to accumulate and cash in their white poker chips, which most other whites accumulated by more effectively playing the race card. Whites have many race cards; this one is a Joker, and it takes the form of a centuries-long system of preferential treatment, a system that could and should have a name-- "Affirmative Action for White Folks."

Two persons--one white and the other black--are playing a game of poker. The game has been in progress for some 300 years.

One player--the white one--has been cheating during much of this time, but now announces: ‘"from this day forward, there will be a new game with new players and no more cheating.'"

Hopeful but suspicious, the black player responds, "that's great. I've been waiting to hear you say that for 300 years. Let me ask you, what are you going to do with all those poker chips that you have stacked up on your side of the table all these years?"

"Well," said the white player, somewhat bewildered by the question, "they are going to stay right here, of course."

"That's unfair,' snaps the black player. ‘The new white player will benefit from your past cheating. Where's the equality in that?"

"But you can't realistically expect me to redistribute the poker chips along racial lines when we are trying to move away from considerations of race and when the future offers no guarantees to anyone," insists the white player.

"And surely,' he continues, "redistributing the poker chips would punish individuals for something they did not do. Punish me, not the innocents!"

Emotionally exhausted, the black player answers, "but the innocents will reap a racial windfall."

Isn't the real question here, why in the world would America not pay reparations? Or maybe, this is the right question--exactly why is it that America hasn't already paid reparations?

80 comments:

"A group with members lucky enough to have pale skin, and thus able to...."

This statement is inaccurate, and a somewhat distasteful construction, I feel. Light skin did not and does not make one white, and dark skin did not and does not make one black. See also, One Drop Rule. For certain, there were individuals light enough to pass whose 40 acres were confiscated or never distributed in the first place. Inversely (or conversely?) there were and are certainly individuals legally classified as "white" whose ancestry is mixed African American and European American. Racial constructions have an *overlap* with phenotype, sometimes, but you get my point.

Also, I can see that you might be being ironic, here, but it reads kinda "off," as though luck somehow gave them the advantages that you reel off, rather than a systematic campaign of enslavement and brutality. The sentence just reads...flip.

Thank you for pointing that out, Katie. You’re right about the sentence’s inaccuracy, so I’ve amended it accordingly. I’ve also tried to strengthen the connective contrast between the two groups.

For the record, this is what that paragraph used to say:

It takes money to make money. In general terms, a group that's been shunned for over a century, and has only recently acquired anything near equitable access, still has a lot of catching up to do. And in general terms also, a group with members lucky enough to have pale skin, and thus able to own land and work for over a century at higher paying jobs, and then hand their wealth down to their children, who then handed it down to theirs, who then handed it down to today's--that group is still far, far ahead.

Thinking again about what that part of the article says made me realize that it needed more explanation of the wealth gap, so I've added a few paragraphs on that. It makes this post really long for a blog, but some topics are just too complicated for brevity.

I'm a new reader to your blog, and I've been lurking on it for awhile. I absolutely love what you say and find a lot of common sociological philosophies between your blogs and my own opinions. This article is fascinating, and I can't help but admit the truth in it. However, there is a question within that I felt was left unanswered, so I wondered if you could expound on it.

Now that it is realized that reparations ARE owed to minorities for past offenses, what do those reparations look like? Do you have concrete examples of what some of those reparations would be? I think of one of the problems of society is that we come to a certain point in thinking--realizing a problem is true and that "this" needs to be done to fix it. But "this" stays an idea, never an action that gets put into motion.

So for example... I am a white woman, twenty years old, soon to be married, and soon to graduate from college. I recognize my white privilege, and that white people who lived before me gave me this white privilege and it is unjust towards my brothers and sisters of a different color.

Hi Kelly, I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying the blog. Yes, once white folks realize that the deck has been stacked in their favor (to extend even further the card-playing metaphor), many of them let their good hearts get activated, and they want to do something.

What would reparations look like? They could take smaller forms, first of all, volunteer efforts by white folks to help non-white folks who could use it. A larger effort would take grassroots drives to drum up support, a movement toward political efforts to legalize financial reparations. A good lawyer could also do a lot of good toward such an effort. I personally favor communal reparations, rather than handing bags of money to individuals, but then, I'm not sure it's for me to say how it should be paid back. Converting the tax code for school systems from a residential-property basis to something more equitable would be a great start too.

So, it could take a lot of forms. As Sundiata in part points out, white Americans have also taken a lot of non-white culture and bleached it out, claiming it as their own. How about pushing white musicians, for instance, to more fully acknowledge their debts to black predecessors (not that some white musicians don't already do that)?

What could you do? Write letters and articles, spread the word. Find ways to offer your services to people who have been dealt less cards in life than you have. Check out communities of color nearby, and get brave enough to cross racial lines. Find out what organizations need volunteers, and humbly ask if you can help. Then follow THEIR rules--white folks have a tendency to feel like they belong on center stage, and thus to jump in enthusiastically with their own ideas and approaches. That can be annoying, to say the least.

The other thing you can do is to keep learning and thinking about your own whiteness. Become aware of your own racial training and what it encourages you to do; learn to stop enacting the encouragements that you disagree with. And talk about whiteness with your white friends and family members. Mark it, point it out, instead of letting it maintain its power through "normalized" invisibility.

Finally, you can find more suggestions in my review of Robert Jensen's powerful handbook for white folks The Heart of Whiteness, and of course in the book itself.

Happy lurking, and do feel free to comment elsewhere here when the urge strikes.

I think the district-based property-tax education system is the best target for a "reparations" campaign. We're one of the few developed nations in the world with such an absurd and segregating education system that leaves low-income areas with underfunded schools, and high-income areas with well-funded schools. This needs to seriously change. The cost of education needs to be shared on a larger municipal level, as high as state or national, to really provide every individual with the kind of education and access they are being promised by rhetoric.

A check in the mail wouldn't mean as much as fundamental changes like this. It also shouldn't stop there, it should be a multi-layered campaign.

Macon- I ended up on your blog from your comment on TPM. I've only read a few entries, but I look forward to reading the rest. You have insightful stuff here, some of which has already given me a lot to think about.

I think most "white folks" view of reparations is tainted by the simplistic view of what it has been portrayed as- a big fat check. As much as everyone laughs at Dave Chapelle for his socially acceptible black-on-black racism, his skit about reparations did a lot of harm in this arena. If you're not familiar with it, he portrayed poor african americans squandering their reparations checks on items such as trucks full of cigarettes, gold and diamonds, and chicken.

Everybody gets to have a laugh, but that underlying bias that it would be some cash handout that would just be wasted is cemented in everyone's consciousness- no matter what race they are. Panhandling for Reparations does exactly the same thing, in my opinion. I fail to see how framing the issue in this way helps anybody.

Yes, I agree about the Chapelle skit, and I see what you mean about the the panhandling spectacle. I gathered that the idea was mostly to get the idea of reparations out there in circulation, however possible. It's also an art project, I think, with a sardonic comment to make on the white attitude toward reparations, as represented by the paltry amounts the panhandlers gathered.

Your comment was thought provoking, thanks again, and I look forward to your thoughts on other posts.

Reparations LOL. Dudes better stop whining about stuff that didn't even happen to them or their parents or their grandparents. There is such as thing as free will, use it. Get an education and get a job.

Or, skip education and biatch about how the man's keeping you down while eating Twinkies in your dilapitated tenement counting the days till rent is due.

I didn't know about the Panhandling bit. I guess I should be pissed off but my first thought here is how Reparations is the perfect topic to show how a White "group think" does indeed exist.

This proves just how there is nothing inherently wrong with speaking about an observed, generalized tendency. And, to me, it's really (and unfortunately) alarming just how Whites tend to view and frame issues regarding race/racism in ways that show a startling lack of variation from person to person.

I actually feel bad (in a pity sort of way) for observing so many White posters on various boards and blogs stating almost verbatim the same old lines and framing about Reparations being cash checks when that's hardly the way actual, organized Reparations advocates have treated the issue.

On another note (because I'm tired of this bs):

If you are White and use the terms "The Man" or "Whitey" in any of your retorts, you might be a racist.

That's the part I felt was missing from JC's excellent post from which we can extract this truism: you don't mock people you respect. And the idea not only that White people can poo-poo Reparations when all else fails because Black people wouldn't know what to do with it let alone framing the idea as a "handout" in the first place reeks of racialized stereotypes. Obviously, those things can be and are internalized by Blacks themselves. What else is new?

The "handout" idea is rather odd because it's based on the idea Reparations represents taking money from Whites, a redistribution of wealth, when that's the very reason for Reparations in the first place.

For some reason, Whites who bemoan having their taxes "taken" and given to someone else have this idea that no one else pays taxes and, worse, that African-Americans don't have that problem 24/7/365.

The irony of it all is how during the Jim Crow era, Blacks basically financed their own oppression via the taxes they paid.

Who should pay the reparations?* White, Asian, Hispanic, Black, All?* Based on when their family came to the US? What I my family came her just 10 years ago? What about 230 years ago?* Where your family members slave owners or not?* How much? By percentage of whiteness? How long my family has been here? Based on income? Based on Wealth?

Who should get the reparations?* Based on percentage of blackness?* Were your family members slaves or not?* Just Blacks or do Asian, Hispanic, Arabs, Persians, etc...?* Based on income? Wealth? Zipcode?

Additional questions* Should the "black" community join in paying reparations to the Native Americans too? Weren't they here first?* Is it just money? or do we consider land transfers, job shuffling, political positions, etc...

We can talk about the great idea of reparations in generalities But the devil is in the details. There isn't a plan you could put together that everyone would consider fair. Down the road won't we have reparations for the reparations?

Stupid question. There was no mystery and little relief from the misery and wrongs caused by slavery for people whose families that were/are connected to slavery including generations that occurred during and after...

The "percentage" of blackness didn't do a damn thing in terms of removing the "slave" children of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson , etc., etc., etc. from the status of slave or so-called second class citizenship.

So you have to be completely illiterate of history and all things common sense to think some "percentage" idea has any meaning here. The One Drop rule and the discrimination that occurred along that color line included ranges of the largest to very small "percentages of blackness."

So what the hell are you talking about? Science fiction?

Were your family members slaves or not?

That's a problem for you to grapple with. We know by the historical sentencing that very small percentages of blackness (since you fake like you want to go there) made for very different family experiences based on that One Drop color line.

That's a LIVED and LIVING history. The color line hasn't been erased. There are families who have inherited all the bad from that color complex and the stigma of slavery that didn't spare any Black families you know of. In fact, the stigma still lives and was violently evident in all the cases of state sanctioned domestic terrorism perpetrated by the KKK, all the instances of LAND THEFT, smack dab in the middle of the creation of Sundown towns and in the creation of suburbs.

That's one big ass ticket from a long period for which Reparations are due and you only up the ante by talking "percentage of blackness."

Who should pay the reparations?

Stupid question #200021919289288972.

The question is irrelevant because no mere, individual taxpayer has a choice in the matter. PERIOD!

The question is like asking:Who should pay for the US military? or any other GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY

You simply don't have a choice in the matter. Don't pay your taxes if you want to. You're not stupid. You know that's against the law.

* Based on when their family came to the US?

Assets and deficits = Total package.

There is no having one without the other. That is unless you want to blow this muthafucka up and start completely from scratch so it would seem "fair."

I thought not.

People love reaping the benefits AND those people who came here during whatever time frame you want to mention have reaped benefits they didn't earn and, so, the reap the country's debts right along with it. It's all part of the package.

What [if] my family came her just 10 years ago? What about 230 years ago?

Doesn't make a bit of damn difference. The government is no respecter of a person's arrive-on dating when it comes to taxes used to pay on the National Debt. It didn't make a damn bit of difference when immigrants got here when the government passed out them checks to Japanese-Americans.

Reason #1 for why you don't want to play the "percentage of blackness" game. Japanese-Americans were interned. Black people were lynched, forced to live in inferior conditions in a confined area on "the other side of the tracks" (virtual, century long internment), etc., etc., etc.

All that with little or no concern over the "percentage of blackness" in the way you talk about. Signs that said WHITE ONLY made it pretty ANY percentage of blackness was a disqualifier.

So what the f-ck are you talking about?

* Should the "black" community join in paying reparations to the Native Americans too?

So what in the world is on your mind to think that anybody BUT YOU has a problem with paying reparations to Native Americans?

Weren't they (Native Americans) here first?

Apparently, so. Your point?

Reparations is based on the principle of restorative justice. After slavery, Black families with a familial connection to slavery had their land taken via racism. Native Americans, on the other hand, has had some measure of the land taken from them restored along with some measure of tribal sovereignty.

So, some things with respect to them have been handled "first."

Is it just money? or do we consider land transfers, job shuffling, political positions, etc...

Do some damn re-search vs. searchin' for an out.

the devil is in the details. There isn't a plan you could put together that everyone would consider fair.

What "everyone" considers doesn't matter. "Everyone" isn't in favor of the Iraq. "Everyone" wasn't at any time the war was considered.

Sucks to be an American, huh? Sucks to be someone who doesn't have a say in the matter.

That's one of them White Privileges Peggy probably forgot to enumerate.

TLB, is that what Anon is trying to do? "pointing out... difficulties with a reparation system"???

It seemed s/he was, instead, using a "pray and spray" method. Anon apparently thought s/he could make a compelling case against Reparations by using any emotional appeal s/he could find.

That's what questions like "Should the "black" community join in paying reparations to the Native Americans too?" and "Just Blacks or do Asian, Hispanic, Arabs, Persians, etc...?" are all about: arousing emotions (his/her own and, hopefully, others) vs. dealing with the issue and raising substantive objections if s/he has any.

Anon's "everyone in the country pays the piper" line is the same kind of emotional red herring trying its best to stir up emotional outrage over the idea Anon not-so-subtly tries to imply by framing the issue the way s/he has which can be summed up like so:

My, how terrible it would be to require "everyone in the country" to "pay the piper." No one would want to be a part of that, now, would they?

I mean, please... I guess by the sure power of Anon's suggestion we're supposed to be like, "No. No, Anon. We wouldn't want to do that."

Seriously... More substance, less emotions in your argument please!

And, speaking about emotions, there is nothing but built up, stored up and scripted emotions in Anon's little "give me money" meme. How s/he thinks that logical fallacy of ascribing some self-serving motive to me -- when only s/he has shown that his/her personal pocketbook is the issue -- actually applies to me, much less "sums up" what I've said, when I noted well before s/he made a post that:

I actually feel bad (in a pity sort of way) for observing so many White posters on various boards and blogs stating almost verbatim the same old lines and framing about Reparations being cash checks when that's hardly the way actual, organized Reparations advocates have treated the issue.

... is beyond me. And, whether Anon is White or not is irrelevant. The basic level of inexplicable ignorance and tired old, unoriginal and, yes, emotional as opposed to substantive arguments is the same no matter what the color of the poster.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It clear that his/her non-response to me is an ad hominem argument.

Also, I never said "One Drop of black blood qualifies you..." What I did do was "address the (non)substance of Anon's argument AND produced evidence against Anon's ignorant "percentage of blackness" framing.

I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction... Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. ...This I say, not to justify slavery -- on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive -- but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. When persons ask me in these days how, in the midst of what sometimes seem hopelessly discouraging conditions, I can have such faith in the future of my race in this country, I remind them of the wilderness through which and out of which, a good Providence has already led us.

Sure it can. Throughout the entire history of the US, white society didn't have a problem in *knowing* whom to excluse, to enslave, who was white under Jim Crow and who is discriminated against today based on race.

I'm still waiting to see a definition of how it's going to be determined who qualifies to receive these reparations and who does not, regardless of the forms they take.

It has to be done if you're going to try to figure out how and how much reparations you're going to collect and how they are to be distributed. It's not a side question, it's central.

Also, when we talk about people who had 40 acres who then had them taken away, you're making the assumption that those folks had any kind of legal title to that land to begin with. As pointed out, Congress never passed such a law. Working land does not in and of itself confer ownership of that land. And it's my guess that the military officer who distributed land had in fact no legal authority or right to do so.

I'm not arguing against the idea that such a thing SHOULD have been done. But to say that a certain group of people had their land taken away from them implies that it WAS done, and that seems to be inaccurate.

Sure it can. Throughout the entire history of the US, white society didn't have a problem in *knowing* whom to excluse, (sp) to enslave, who was white under Jim Crow and who is discriminated against today based on race.

Which begs the question. Much of that was (and is) social custom, but for formal reparations we're talking about a legal definition. Legal definitions back in the times when such things were in fact legal varied from state to state, so there's no set criterion to use that was accepted overall.

If you really want to advance this idea you're going to have to stop ducking the question.

John Conyers's efforts politically need to be supported by all citizens who seriously want reparations.

His bill calls for STUDY of the subject?! -- amazing to hear the arguments people come up with against simply studying the subect, wow.

Conyers's justice committee has been kept so busy in "reparation" for all the plethora of unjust acts of the Bush administration, holding hearing after hearimg, that it's extremely commendable that he has held hearings on study of reparations in the midst of the overload of work.

Anon, not a single thing you listed was an ad hominem especially when you failed to list all the content that "addressed the (non)substance in your post AND produced evidence against your ignorant and asinine "percentage of blackness" idea."

_______________

As for the retarded "who qualifies to receive these reparations" idea NON-DECISION MAKING FOLKS keep pushing as important... Well, there you have. You don't have a say and your 'concern' should follow suit.

It seems rather obvious that Conyers commission to study reparations would be the perfect venue for all these questions to be answered AND answered in a proper manner with all the evidence there...

But there is no mystery as to which Black families endured and LIVED through slavery/Jim Crow. We're talking a LIVING HISTORY that's knowable.

No one ever questioned whether this or that Jewish family suffered from the Holocaust, much less how much they suffered or how long they suffered or were subjected persecution, etc. Israel wasn't founded on the idea either -- i.e. you have to verify that you've been persecuted as a Jew in order to be a resident of the Jewish state.

Because of that, not a single NON-DECISION MAKER should ever think someone owes them answers or explanations for something that people are trying to Kangaroo Court in the first place.

Further, I don't see anyone here trying to sale anything (anyone who supports Reparations that is) so this talk about what people have to do in order to "advance" the idea is presumptuous, to say that least.

WHO? Every last single African-American/African-American family that lived through slavery and the pre-1970, civil rights era in the U.S.

WHAT? Reparations in whatever form those families or their designees decide on.

WHEN? As soon as there is a full hearing to explore the range and depth of all the injuries, damages and losses.

WHY? = self-explanatory. The sorry non-arguments posted by (you) Anon and other posters wouldn't be made if the reason for Reparations wasn't abundantly clear. We're talking about huge transfer of wealth that occurred TO 'WHITES' from 'BLACKS' via wages, land and state sanctioned terrorism and discrimination. Precedents from the reparations case of interned Japanese-Americans and Rosewood, FL are instructive here.

HOW? Is none of your concern. PERIOD... Just as all the other things/questions are none of your business... unless you're intent on pursuing the issue and bringing it to fruition. Plus I already mentioned the "full hearing"... There's a process here to be followed which these aim to circumvent or short-stroke.

nquest said: "Too obvious. Trace the LIVED EXPERIENCE of so-called Black families and each and every one of them that were present from 1776 through, say, 1966 and there you go."

What do you mean by "lived experience?" I promise I am not being snarky here... Is it if there ancestors were slaves? That there is a documented case of discrimination? That they had any family living during that time that was black?

Still trying to understand your view point... Do these people get reparations? Do they get the same amount? Is it means tested?

1. Barack Obama2. Condi Rice3. Colin Powell4. Oprah Winfrey5. A Kenyan family that immigrated to the USA in 19806. A white guy with white parents, white grandparents, white great-grandparents, and 15 white great-great-grandparents and one black great-great-grandparent that was enslaved.7. Booker T Washington's descendants? (I notice that you still haven't addressed that quote...)

And yes, as a taxpayer who would help foot the bill for reparations, I do have a say and genuine stake in what, how much, and when the payment is made. Is $20k per person enough as in the Japanese internment case? More or Less than that? Why?

nquest said: "This question is relevant... WHY? Is there some time during the year or over the next decade that's more preferable?

Really... think before you regurgitate."

Yes there there may be a preferable time period. It is really very simple. It is called the time value of money. You will want to pay at the last moment possible, and others will want to get at the earliest moment possible.

Lets say you win $10 million in the lottery you have two choices for payment.1. Lump sum2. Annuity of 30 years.

You would naturally take the lump sum rather then spread it out over 30 years. Time value of money. So to balance it, the lottery administration will only offer a percentage of the 10 million in the lump sum probably only 50% or so.

The details of the payments matter greatly to those that will be making the payments, and our kids, and grandkids.

Whether they do or don't is certainly not any of your business. What part of that don't you understand? I've been clear in saying just that. So, you obviously and most definitely have not been trying to understand "my" view.

Asking such an asinine question also shows how you need to do your own damn research. You're asking those questions out of complete ignorance and you most definitely haven't been paying attention, much less, trying to understand "my" view.

You show the WEAKNESS in your objections/opposition when all you got are EXTREMES. You go from Oprah to this bs:

6. A white guy with white parents, white grandparents, white great-grandparents, and 15 white great-great-grandparents and one black great-great-grandparent that was enslaved.

When you do that, you show you just aren't ready.

To your question:What part of LIVED EXPERIENCE don't you understand?

Two really simple words there and it's obvious how your White guy doesn't fit. You can't pre-fab this. This is very clear:

there is no mystery as to which Black families endured and LIVED through slavery/Jim Crow. We're talking a LIVING HISTORY that's knowable.

No one ever questioned whether this or that Jewish family suffered from the Holocaust, much less how much they suffered or how long they suffered or were subjected persecution, etc.

So, when the did White guy in that scenario and HIS FAMILY suffer the way 'BLACK' families did through slavery thru 1966?

More importantly, show me a REAL LIFE example of "A white guy with white parents, white grandparents, white great-grandparents, and 15 white great-great-grandparents and one black great-great-grandparent who was enslaved" or go back to the drawing board and find some other cooked up bs you think makes sense or raises relevant questions.

You simply can't use that White guy to show me how the One Drop rule and all the discrimination, LAND THEFTS and all that came with it that came after but was shaped by slavery, applied to and impact all "Black" families.

Is it if there ancestors were slaves?

Unintelligible.

The LIVED EXPERIENCE of a family that's enslaved and/or a family that inherited the disadvantaged and racism that found its origin in slavery is so clearly different from the FICTIONAL White guy you described.

That there is a documented case of discrimination?

The One Drop Rule concept itself is enough. Show me a case of any "Black" person who wasn't subjected to slavery or discrimination or "second class citizenship"... a Black person who the One Drop Rule, etc. didn't apply to.

Show me a case of a Black person whose LIFE CHANCES wasn't negatively impacted from 1776 to 1966 -- i.e. who didn't have broad and blatant social/institution restrictions placed, artificially, on their aspirations/potential.

That they had any family living during that time that was black?

During what time? 1776 to 1966 represents a LIVING HISTORY especially the last portion of it. So, there is nothing difficult about tracing Black families back a generation or two... and with each of those generations it's clear which families inherited disadvantages from slavery and the social stigma inherited from slavery that is the core of the discrimination those families faced after slavery.

The details of the payments matter greatly to those that will be making the payments, and our kids, and grandkids.

And, yet, it's none of your business and you have no place in any decisions regarding it. That's the way restitution in cases like this works. So it doesn't matter how much it matters to you.

Also, the "time value of money" thing doesn't make much sense. The Lottery administration won't kick back what it won't release via the lump sum to losers in the lottery.

And you assume too much when you say "you would naturally take the lump sum." You just outlined how a "lottery winner" (a bs analogy infused with the racialized bs on your brain) stands to gain more by spreading the payments out via the way lump sums have an extra added 'tax' penalty to them.

Booker T Washington said: "and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe."

Reparations is about compensating for injuries, damages and/or losses incurred. Booker T. Washington's comments are irrelevant when it comes to that save for him acknowledging "the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery" which indicates that injuries, damages and/or losses were, indeed, incurred.

If we are talking billions or trillions of dollars in transfers then yes when and how the payments are made make a big difference!

Yet, not a single bit of it is your business. You don't have a say when an individual/group sues your city or a company you work for or hold stock in... Likewise, you don't have a say when it comes to Reparations for African-Americans.

So whatever difference it makes to you is immaterial to the actual issue.

nquest said: "And, yet, it's none of your business and you have no place in any decisions regarding it. That's the way restitution in cases like this works. So it doesn't matter how much it matters to you."

Yes it is my business. If the money will be taken from me via federal taxation. I will have a say as the legislation is being drafted and the details worked out. I will have a say in the future elections of my representatives.

Yes it is my business. If the money will be taken from me via federal taxation. I will have a say as the legislation is being drafted and the details worked out. I will have a say in the future elections of my representatives.

Germans were never asked if they want to pay reparations and most were opposed to it. Nonetheless West-Germany paid reparations

Booker T Washington said: "I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction..."

nquest said: "Booker T. Washington's comments are irrelevant when it comes to that save for him acknowledging "the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery"

It is convenient to ignore half of his statement and focus on just the negative. You could learn from his forgiveness and positive outlook.

Was slavery wrong? Absolutely! Was life, liberty, happiness, land, money, opportunity, education, and a whole host of other things taken or denied? Absolutely.

Have the descendants of those slaves born continuing negatives of slavery? Yes. Have the descendants also benefited? Yes. consider their lives had they remained in Africa. See above post.

Go ahead and focus on the negative if you wish. You will find what you look for. You could focus on the positive of being a citizen of a country with the best opportunity for life, liberty, happiness, education, land, and businesses of black families.

You have NO SAY in the matter and such an argument from EXTREMES is a weak argument that doesn't warrant any response past what I've given.

How does one measure the "LIVED EXPERIENCE" and at what threshold does that lived experience become bad enough to warrant reparations?

When you come back and show me a Black family that was exempt from slavery and the discrimination that applied to both slaves and free Blacks during the slavery era... AND when you come back and show me a Black family that was exempt from the inherited disadvantage slavery wrought for their families after slavery AND the discrimination and the artificial restrictions this racist society (society wide) placed on them, their aspirations and LIFE CHANCES then we can talk.

There were no questions of whether certain Japanese-American internment experience was "bad enough" to warrant reparations. The internment itself was "bad enough". The same goes for ALL Black families that were subjected to the racism, discrimination (LAND THEFTS and FORCED REMOVALS aka 'sundown towns' and all) and artificial reduction or restrictions placed on their LIFE CHANCES...

Those things apply to Oprah... Her family wasn't exempt from what occurred from 1776 to 1966. But do some research and find where any individual or organization actively pushing the Reparations issue have argued for reparations to Oprah.

Until you find that as part of the arguments from people like Charles Ogletree, Randall Robinson (at the time) or from organizations like N'COBRA then you really have no reason for the bs argument.

But if you really want to go there... show me how Oprah's family (and, by extension, the inheritance they were able to pass along to her, even the high(er) quality of education their socio-economic lot via the community they lived in was able to afford her)... show me how her family was exempt.

Simply, you can't.

All you got are EXTREME (aka "straw man"), emotion based arguments, grounded in nothing but bs that exist in your mind.

Whatever Oprah achieved, unlike her White counterparts, was IN SPITE of the racism that shaped the environment she grew up in. So if Black people (or their designee) decide Oprah will get Reparations then that's clearly their historically justified prerogative.

nquest said: "When you come back and show me a Black family that was exempt from slavery and the discrimination that applied to both slaves and free Blacks during the slavery era... AND when you come back and show me a Black family that was exempt from the inherited disadvantage slavery wrought for their families after slavery AND the discrimination and the artificial restrictions this racist society (society wide) placed on them, their aspirations and LIFE CHANCES then we can talk."

What is the definition of "a Black family" in the above statement?

Is it genetics? genealogy? Country of origin? What of mixed racial families? Adoption?

You can and do ignore my stake in this discussion, and that is okay. How will you decide who gets a piece of the pie? You never know I may have standing to become a claimant if the rules are broad enough.

It is convenient to ignore half of his statement and focus on just the negative.

I didn't ignore anything. His "forgiveness" and his comparison are IRRELEVANT to what Reparations is about. It's not about whether African-Americans are in a "stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than [any other] black people in any other portion of the globe."

Reparations is about compensating for injuries, damages and/or losses incurred.

So, non-issues, like what you wanted to reference with the Booker T. quote, are, by definition, IRRELEVANT.

What's "convenient" is for you to scurry about looking for any and every piece of off-topic bs and pretend that it has something to do with the issue.

Was slavery wrong? Absolutely! Was life, liberty, happiness, land, money, opportunity, education, and a whole host of other things taken or denied? Absolutely.

Well, then. We clearly see where the injuries, damages and losses were incurred. So now we have a idea of what's necessary to account for and compensate for those injuries, damages and losses incurred via LAND THEFTS and FORCED REMOVALS, in state sanctioned inferior education which continues to this day and the opportunities denied/taken away which have yet to end.

Have the descendants of those slaves born continuing negatives of slavery? Yes. Have the descendants also benefited? Yes.

Whatever "benefits" descendants have experienced have not dealt with the injuries, damages and losses incurred. Reparations is about compensating for injuries, damages and/or losses incurred.

Those injuries, damages and losses were SPECIFIC to those enslaved and their descendants. The "benefits" you alluded to are not and, therefore, are IRRELEVANT.

consider their lives had they remained in Africa.

If we consider that then there is no way of knowing what African would be like today if they had remained in Africa. Obviously your consideration is remarkably shallow. Too shallow to try to convince someone else that they should consider something you really have thought about beyond a surface level.

You obviously have no idea what it would if Africa wasn't depopulated to the degree with was as a result of the slave trade which obviously was all about taking the best, youngest and strongest West Africans.

FYI, you just undercut your argument which was IRRELEVANT in the first place.

You could focus on the positive of being a citizen of a country with the best opportunity for life, liberty, happiness, education, land, and businesses of black families.

And you could actually say something that's RELEVANT. And there's nothing negative about Reparations save for the situation it seeks to rectify.

Definition: each and every family that was subjected to America's race slavery and/or the racism that existed then AND the racism that followed slavery all the way up to the 1960's.

You keep asking about genetics, etc., etc. when I keep referring to the LIVED EXPERIENCE of those families. The FICTIONAL White guy you referenced (or even someone who was able to pass for White and forever lived a "White" life afterwards) obviously didn't have the LIVED EXPERIENCE.

You keep arguing from distant genetics which is incidental, at best, if it has any bearing at all. And there is no reason for these questions other than trying to muddy the waters.

What of mixed racial families?

What about them?? You act like that's a significant issue as if being "mixed" exempted somebody let alone being a significant category of people. Plus, I already talked about the "mixed" children fathered by Jefferson and Washington.

The "percentage" of blackness didn't do a damn thing in terms of removing the "slave" children of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson , etc., etc., etc. from the status of slave or so-called second class citizenship.

You should pay attention instead of asking the same questions over and over when your questions just aren't founded.

You can add Essie Mae Washington to the "mixed" list. She wasn't exempt from Jim Crow racism.

So, yes, what about "mixed" people? What do you think your pre-debunked point is?

So, when you can show me how Oprah's family was exempt from any of that at any time from 1776 to 1966 then and ONLY then can we talk -- i.e. ONLY then will you have an argument or a question that warrants consideration.

You never know I may have standing to become a claimant if the rules are broad enough.

No need to. My support of Reparations isn't about me. Already said that.

So, find another/better argument; one not based on some bs assumption you had before you ever posted here. I understand, though... You have little else left in your arsenal other than to try to over-personalize the issue and make it about "me" and this fallacy of ascribing some self-serving motive to me which is unfounded.

As far as "quantifying reparations"... I'll leave that for experts to determine during the FULL HEARING on the issue.

That's a very non-emotional way to go about this. No Kangaroo Court allowed.

It wont affect the countries economy or increase taxes or hit people's wallets...

The country pays for a lot of stuff in a lot of ways and it doesn't have to print "new money" to do it.

Back away from the faulty assumptions and emotional rhetoric founded on bs and ignorance. This "appeal to consequence" fallacy is not going to work.

I forgot that if I am paying and not receiving then that is positive for me too.

No. You forgot to talk about the benefits people with the "paying" burden will reap. I'm sure there will be some group of people somewhere in the world whose situation will be worst than theirs... and that's if we take your idea that Reparations would have a negative impact on the nation's economy.

All along you tried to frame this in terms of lump sum, monetary Reparations. I suppose African-Americans aren't a part of the American economy and any money they have doesn't spread throughout the American economy.

1. Slavery was bad. We both agree2. Continuing discrimination is bad. We both agree.3. Some percentage of the population will qualify for some sort of reparations. (Some group will define who and what at some time in the future)4. The criteria to be included and the proof one needs to meet the criteria will be defined by someone at a later time5. It will be funded via a federal tax.

So to sum that up:Slavery was bad + Power to tax + a lot of hand waving, smoke and mirrors = Transfer of wealth

Here is my core concern:

No one can show me the plan, the real details, the process, the proposed law, the dollars and cents? How will this be done? Can anyone point me to a good resource on this?

Please someone, anyone, provide more than "suck it up rich white boy, we are taking your money, because you shouldn't of had it in the first place, and there isn't anything you can do about it!"

The above line doesn't sell to well if you are trying to gain converts to your cause. And you are going to need converts to get the Congress to pass a law to do this.

The above line doesn't sell to well if you are trying to gain converts to your cause.

What part of...

Further, I don't see anyone here trying to [sell] anything -anyone who supports Reparations that is- so this talk about what people have to do in order to "advance" the idea is presumptuous, to say that least.

don't you understand?

Apparently, you want the WHITE PRIVILEGE of thinking your approval is both needed and sought. That simply is not the case here.

And you are going to need converts to get the Congress to pass a law to do this.

Well, let me know when Macon's blog becomes the venue for Congressional business. Otherwise, quit begging for people to try to convert you. However you feel about the issue is IRRELEVANT. You simply don't have a say.

nquest said: "Apparently, you want the WHITE PRIVILEGE of thinking your approval is both needed and sought. That simply is not the case here."

It most certainly is the case here:

Rep. John Conyers has introduced the "Commission to Study Reparations Proposals for African-Americans Act" legislation every year since 1989. That is nearly 20 years with no outcome. So you you do need converts and yes you are going to need the approval of a large portion of the country. And yes 80% of the US population is not black.

That is nearly 20 years with no outcome... And yes 80% of the US population is not black.

All of which begs the question of:

What are you so afraid of?aka Why are you concerned about anything as it relates to Reparations for African-Americans?

Why expend all of these emotions (and pathetic arguments against Reparations) when you feel like they have to go through you and you feel confident that "converts" have to be won over to a cause that for 20 years has seen "no outcome."???

You don't have anything to worry about, let you tell it. And I'm not trying nor do I even care, much less believe, that I have to convert you.

That's all a win-win for you if you actually believe the stuff you say and the arguments you make.

If you are not willing to teach others what appears close to your heart

"Teach others..." You done fell and bumped your head. There is no need for me to teach you something you can learn on your own.

Plus "convert" and "teach" are not the same thing. The least you can do while begging to be relevant is to stay consistent.

Your mind (and the bs in it) is playing tricks on you. There is no need for you to be a convert. Obviously, you have no fact/history based reason to think Reparations will require your buy-in or that of a "large" portion of Americans.

Again, I'm not worried. Not one bit. WHY ARE YOU?

What are you so afraid of?aka Why are you concerned about anything as it relates to Reparations for African-Americans?

There is simply no reason for me to try to "convert" or "teach" you because of what drives you to be so afraid... so 'concerned'...

My second post (July 7, 2008 9:46 AM) asked more questions. All I got back was "you are trying to appeal to our emotions"

My third post (July 8, 2008 1:55 PM) Asking the same questions because no one has answered them. All I get is dodges, side steps, name calling, put downs, nothing of substance, no detail.

I want to learn some detail! I see this article here and send the bucket down the well to see if there is any water here. Nope this well is dry. All there is, is someone down the bottom of the well yelling and screaming to find your own water, and I don't care if you need water anyway.

So I go looking into other wells for some "water of knowledge"

And this is what I find:http://www.nationalcenter.org/Reparations.html

Wow! Someone actually speaking about the details.

So you don't need to convince me, convert me, and really don't care much about me. The well is dry you scream. I'm off to get my questions answered somewhere else. Good luck with pushing reparations, or doing whatever it is you do. Ciao.

They have more details and specifics than you are able or willing to give or point to.

First, many of the "details" you've asked for are none of your business.

Second, they have links and, indeed, feebly attempt to argue against what I've "pointed to." The first commentary on the page you linked to mentions Charles Ogletree. If you did your research and did it in earnest then you would never ask asinine questions about Oprah, etc., etc.

As for "specifics", this most certainly is NOT. It's just some of that bs Project 21 is 'SPONSORED' for. But it's your false pretense for you to defend.

You pretended like you were going elsewhere to get your questions answered and that is obviously not what you've done. What you've done is made me lmao!!!!

The title of and the blog in its hypocritical entirety is incredibly offensive.

You clearly know your history; however, that's not what those individuals who personally opposed to the idea of reparations need. Instead, what IS needed is to understand why one would hold the great great grandchild responsible for the crimes that their great great grandfather committed.Maybe "the System" should start coming after the grandchildren of people who committed unsolved crimes after they're solved in 10 years from now?No man (White, Black, Asian or a pale shade of blue) should be required to pay for a crime that they undoubtedly did not commit.

Furthermore, How can one attempt to portray themselves as a voice of fairness when one clearly shows their contempt for the "White Folk"?

Yet when whites even recognize race, they are racists. If other people want to pay reparations, fine, but I WORKED for my money. I didn't benefit from any past cheating. I got a job and worked, worked, worked, so it's not like I just inherited money made from slavery as in your poker example.